Discovering insulin must have felt good, maybe he meant it as a good thing.:smile:
Proven Western Logic VS. Flawed Eastern Logic
- Thread starter In Between Man
- Start date
Discovering insulin must have felt good, maybe he meant it as a good thing.:smile:
It woodint be the first time. But you having a logic completely alien to mine it dosen't surprise me, I'm not afraid that it will be fatal or painfull.:smile:
Both ''either-or'' logic and ''both-and'' can work if they are used in their right contexts.
For example, I could say ''this movie is either good or bad and it can't be both at once''. But that would be an inappropriate use of ''either-or'' logic. The problem is that we are dealing with a subjective statement.
The movie can be both good and bad, depending on your point of view. When we are dealing with subjective statements, we are dealing with personal interpretation of exterior data and most of the times, ''either-or'' logic simply doesn't apply.
''Unicorns either exist or they don't''... In the ''real'' objective world, you can almost surely say this and be right. But in the subjective world, you wouldn't be quite so. If I say the word ''unicorn'' you have a very clear mental image of what I am talking about. In a sense unicorns DO exist because we have a word for the concept. Unicorns exist as human mental construct. In another sense, unicorns simply don't exist because the only place we can find them is in our imagination.
''Either-or'' can only work in an attempt to be purely objective. And I won't even get into the issue of whether or not pure objectivity is possible.
To use ''either-or'' logic on a statement such as ''God exists or he doesn't'' is naive at best. First of all, to say such a thing, one must define God in a very precise way. And we quickly get into a puzzle of various subjective interpretations of what the word ''God'' means.
To one, ''God'' means a particular version of the Christian God (and there are many!). To another, ''God'' means the universe as a whole, in its complete oneness. The former tends to see God as something other than the universe while the latter sees God as being the universe. The two interpretations of the word are miles away from each other and that is only the tip of the iceberg of how many variations you can find in the interpretation of the word ''God''.
So saying ''God either exists or he doesn't'' is rather pointless.
For example, I could say ''this movie is either good or bad and it can't be both at once''. But that would be an inappropriate use of ''either-or'' logic. The problem is that we are dealing with a subjective statement.
The movie can be both good and bad, depending on your point of view. When we are dealing with subjective statements, we are dealing with personal interpretation of exterior data and most of the times, ''either-or'' logic simply doesn't apply.
''Unicorns either exist or they don't''... In the ''real'' objective world, you can almost surely say this and be right. But in the subjective world, you wouldn't be quite so. If I say the word ''unicorn'' you have a very clear mental image of what I am talking about. In a sense unicorns DO exist because we have a word for the concept. Unicorns exist as human mental construct. In another sense, unicorns simply don't exist because the only place we can find them is in our imagination.
''Either-or'' can only work in an attempt to be purely objective. And I won't even get into the issue of whether or not pure objectivity is possible.
To use ''either-or'' logic on a statement such as ''God exists or he doesn't'' is naive at best. First of all, to say such a thing, one must define God in a very precise way. And we quickly get into a puzzle of various subjective interpretations of what the word ''God'' means.
To one, ''God'' means a particular version of the Christian God (and there are many!). To another, ''God'' means the universe as a whole, in its complete oneness. The former tends to see God as something other than the universe while the latter sees God as being the universe. The two interpretations of the word are miles away from each other and that is only the tip of the iceberg of how many variations you can find in the interpretation of the word ''God''.
So saying ''God either exists or he doesn't'' is rather pointless.
Nuts. Logic is logic. There are two types, for sure, but they have nothing to do with geography. The types are inductive and deductive. Deductive is using a set of spedific data or a general principle to arrive at a specific conclusion. Inductive is using a number of proven facts to draw a general conclusion.
Of course, but logic as you describe can only be used when describing the world objectively. As soon as subjectivity points its head, the rules of the game tend to change quickly enough.
Of course, but then the logic turns to something else known as "interpretation" or something of that nature in which you can USE logic to arrive at an opinion or an interpretation, but it is sometimes flawed logic.
Only sometimes? I don't think logic can be applied to subjective beliefs. Opinion is a subjective thing. We can agree that a rock is a rock, although native americans might have a very different idea what it is, but very few have an identical concept of what a god is.
If my arrangement of logic blocks dosen't yield the dictated results it is not logical. Proof by reasoning. and or nor not nand have I missed any?
Sometimes. It depends on wheth4er your data set is complete or you forgot something.
If a cauliflower doesn't know it's a cauliflower why does it appear as a cauliflower and act as a vegetable?
Cool. I respect others in and for their beliefs. I won't knock someone for their
religious beliefs. I have my own...they're very different from most other peoples.
I don't care what others think about them, 'cuz they work for me, and I'm not
recruiting :lol: anyone. Anyway....
Good on you. I'm off to bed.
________________________
I thought my beliefs were different from 'most' others too at one time... until I discovered that I was measuring 'most' with a Christian yardstick... and btw I love your philosophy on recruitment... I often say my beliefs don't require me to convince anyone of their truth. Keeps life simple.
Nope - in fact, more than once she's accidentally let it slip that she only tolerates math, science and the like because they keep reality rolling along so smoothly.
:lol:The core issue here is that you want me to debate you from your perspective using your rules. I can't do that because your perspective makes no sense to me and I can only debate from my point of view and rules that make sense to me.
By the way, I did pick your argument apart. Just because you do not understand where I'm coming from doesn't negate my point of view any more than your arguments negate mine. Your reality is so foriegn to me I may as well be debating an iguana.
Follow the schematic during the assembly of your lawnmover, if it blowsup and burns the logic was wrong if it cuts grass it was right. You have to prove logic with experiment and repeatability, I guess, but you wouldn't use math unless everything else failed.:smile:
Humans are flawed therefore their logic is flawed. If we weren't flawed we would be gods and goddesses and those that need an external deity to control their lives would not know what to do with themselves.
That sounds like flawed logic, for those of you who were wondering what flawed logic sounds like.